I think I'm seeing a misconception about the RO, and I want to clarify it.
I believe people might be assuming the the RO is for the rape - it's not. It's for the assault & battery. (Timeline for new readers: rape 5/29/13, A&B 5/31/13. I did not see him on 5/30.) Because that's the crime he was committing when the cops arrived.
The full story is in my posts from last year, but a summation: I reported the rape at ~1am on 5/31. Two cops came to take my statement, and I was told that the SA officer would contact me next business day. I e-mailed Judah to inform him that I had filed a report.
That morning, he showed up at the house. He violently assaulted me. When he decided he was done, he grabbed some of his stuff and went to put it in his truck, and I called the police, who arrived almost immediately (benefits of living in a small town). They interviewed both of us separately, investigated the scene of the crime (he'd thrown me into a bookcase hard enough to knock it free of the wall, stuff was scattered, etc.) and documented my injuries.
They brought us to the courthouse (because I requested an RO against him). The process to get an RO: The victim tells their side of the story, and the perpetrator tells theirs. Judah confirmed every detail of my account of events (of the assault and battery; we were instructed to leave the rape out, as it would be investigated separately), and added several details that I'd forgotten due to shock (example: him twisting my wrist behind my back).
So yes, I guess it's easy to get a restraining order - if the perpetrator openly confesses, to the judge, on record, that he violently assaulted you.
So keep that in mind. The RO was put into place specifically because Judah told the judge that he violently assaulted me and described the assault in horrific detail. There is no he said/she said here.
Yes, I have the recording of this, to be released after the trial.
So the reason that it's for A&B instead of rape is not because there was any doubt that he raped me, but because the A&B was in progress when the cops arrived, and I had not had time to complete a formal report of the rape with the SA officer yet. (I did so later that day.)
When can we call someone a rapist?
When they rape someone, IMO.
But there's been some "you can't call someone a rapist until they've been convicted", and that is hilarious bullshittery.
Only 6% of rapists get convicted. 6%.
Are you really saying that 94% of rapes are false accusations? Are you? Because if you are, wow, not even the ickiest of MRAs claims a false accusation rate that high.
The actual false accusation rate is 2%. Which means the failure point between rapes everyone acknowledges to have happened (including the police) and rapists being convicted is a broken criminal justice system. We'll talk about that another time.
But if your line is "you can't call it rape until he's convicted", you are calling 94% of rape cases false accusations. Consider that.
Y'all can ask me questions about this stuff, but I'll be at Readercon all day, so responses will be delayed. There's actual productive and respectful conversation about the situation going on here.